CliveH Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Over on Motorhome Matters a good thread on the problems with SAGA and I made a comment which may be of interest to others - hence reposting here:- SAGA Insurance Do note that the firm behind SAGA Insurance is AVIVA - who used to be Norwich Union. This is a firm with an appalling claims paying history in the general insurance field. Hence the reason why the recent name change to AVIVA. If they had had a good reputation then any sane firm would have built on that name brand and good reputation. But when you have a bad name and reputation - you change your name and carry on as before. Now I deal with pensions, investment etc and I have no issue with that side of AVIVA's business - in fact some of their funds are very good - but so are many others. However, I regularly met with people that when I informed them that our research had indicated Norwich Union/Aviva as coming up as one of the top three, out would come the horror stories of their dealings with the general insurance side of that firm. Hence now, when they come near the top we ask the question "Have you ever had any issues with...?" and so often the answer is that those who have been treated badly by this firm would not touch them with a proverbial bargepole as a consequence. It seems to me that this firm now sells its wares by tie-ins with the likes of SAGA. It is the provider behind Tesco Insurance. In fact you can see a list - which I think is pretty comprehensive on the SayNoto0870 website:- http://www.saynoto0870.com/companysearch.php - this page lists most of the firms that Aviva/NU has tie ups with. It does not surprise me on jot to find that NU/Aviva is using Direct Marketing to excess - Independent Financial Advisers and Independent Insurance Brokers do NOT rate this company highly on price, claims paying history or administration. Hence my view that this company is marketing itself behind more trusted names. I will post this on Chatterbox as well to get a wider audience. As an FSA authorised individual I would urge caution when dealing with this firm - I have had far too many horror stories and seen the appalling claims paying history to recommend them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 As Clive has posted here in addition to Motorhome Matters, I have also reposted my response as follows: Saga has little (if any) current tie-in to Aviva. (I can't vouch for the past) It is owned, (and has been for around 4 years) by a private equity group, Acromas Holdings, who also own, amongst others, The AA and the British School of Motoring. The great majority of their policies are currently underwritten by Acromas Insurance, which I believe is also a part of the group. As Brian Kirby has pointed out in the past, it is interesting to note where this particular Insurance Company is regulated (....in Gibraltar ). Research indicates that there are reciprocal and disclosure arrangements between the Gibraltar regulating authorities and those in the UK - the value of these I wouldn't feel qualified to comment on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 This from the FSA register:- Basic details for: 228704 - Acromas Insurance Company Limited Current status: EEA Authorised Effective Date: 29/09/2003 Tied Agent: Undertakes Insurance Mediation: Registered under Money Laundering Regulations: Address: The Saga Building Middelburg Square Folkestone Kent CT20 1AZ Phone: Fax: Email: Website: - - - - Notices: For passported EEA firms, the home supervisor decides whether or not they are authorised to hold client money and/or client assets. If they are so authorised the home state client money and/or client assets rules apply. Other information: Consumers considering or currently doing business with passported EEA firms ('EEA Authorised'), may wish to ask for further information from the firm or its UK branch about its complaints and compensation arrangements. This is because the position may differ compared to a UK authorised firm. .............................................. I have not seen what Brian has posted on this - but I am concerned that all the comprehensive complaints and compensation legislation that apply to a UK based insurer do not apply here with Acromas as it is a non UK firm. Same sort of situation as some had with the Icelandic Banks where they open a branch in the UK but the head office remains elsewhere. BEWARE! - if you have a problem you WILL have far more "layers" to deal with. I would be very careful in dealing with this firm. Again from the FSA website:- Firm name Post code Previous/Trading As names Status Non-FSMA Registration Acromas Holidays Ltd CT20 3SE Saga Holidays Ltd -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aa Getaways, Aa Travel, Acromas Holidays, Connections, Driveline, Elegant River Cruises... Appointed Representative Acromas Insurance Company Limited CT20 1AZ Saga Insurance Company Limited -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EEA Authorised Novator Limited W1K 1RA Saga Capital Limited -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No longer Authorised Saga Personal Finance Limited CT20 3SE Saga Investment Direct Limited -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saga, Saga Financial Planning , Saga Share Direct, Saga Share Direct'S Frequent Trader S... Authorised Saga Securities AS Saga Securities As -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No longer Authorised Saga Services Limited CT20 3SE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saga, Saga Financial Planning, Saga Group, Saga Insurance, Saga Insurance Services, Saga Services Authorised Societe d'Assurances Generales Appliquees (SAGA) Ltd Societe D'Assurances Generales Appliq... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EEA Authorised WNS Global Services (UK) Limited. IP1 1LL Wns Global Services (Uk) Limited. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bt Accident Management, Ensign Through Wns, Ge Capital Management, Hsbc Insurance, Invensys Accident Helpline, Markerstudy At Town & Country... Authorised Interesting when you click the Saga Insurance link under AVIVA on the SayNoto0870.com website (link above does not seem to work - so go to www.saynoto0870.com and enter AVIVA in firm search box and you get a long list of names and departments that AVIVA markets itself as) you go to the SAGA website that states the insurer is Acromas - not a mention Aviva. And yet Aviva is dealing with the administration! Peculiar and more peculiar. I will dig a little more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Glad you two are getting the same, slightly queasy, vibe I got from my little trawl of Acromas! The question I kept asking myself is: Why does a firm that apparently does most of its business in UK, base itself in Gibraltar? There seemed to be two answers. 1 Because the tax regime in Gib if more favourable. 2 Because the regulatory regime in Gib is more favourable. Whether it is actually 1, 2, or both I couldn't begin to discover, so I decided to give them a miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Are there any reputable general insurance companies (?) ................... At the moment I tend to go purely on price, as I dont expect any of them to pay anymore than the bare minimum ...............or nothing at all if they can get awat with it*-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 .....I wasn't that queasy (...for insurance at least, if it had been investment it might have been different). If you search on FSCS and Acromas, you will find various hits confirming that they subscribe to the UK FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme), the terms of which provide (for insurance) as following: In the unlikely event that Acromas Insurance Company Limited becomes insolvent and is unable to pay the benefits under your policy, you are protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). The first £2,000 of any claim is protected in full. For amounts above this FSCS will ensure that policyholders are compensated to 90% of the value that their policy would have paid. Compulsory classes of insurance are covered for 100% of the claim without any upper limit. Given that the last sentence should cover the potentially expensive third-party scenarios, I could live with this. As far as using Gibraltar is concerned, from what I could determine, with the small exception ;-) of possibly lower required solvency margins than the UK, much is to do with the tax implications and the speed of set-up. Whilst the following applies to a different company, it provides some interesting background. http://www.cgice.com/online/faq.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 Yes - Icesave and Kaupthing Edge were able to have the same wording. However - the reality is that in a company that is not actually registered in the UK then you have to go through the compensation scheme of the country of registration first and then apply to the FSCS for the top up. For example the Icelandic scheme provided a compensation scheme of so-many Icelandic Kronar (at the time about £15,000 I think) and then when you had got that then you could go to the FSCS for the rest. However as Gordon brown stepped in and with Prudential’s help (PLEASE NOTE - there are honourable companies out there and the role the dear old Pru played in bailing out Icelandic bank investors should be noted!) the Pru and the taxpayer bailed out each and every stupid investor who chased ridiculous interest rates and who took the word of equally ridiculous journalists who would not know a balance sheet from a mystic meg horoscope. One check with an accountant or IFA who knew what was going on would have stopped them in their tracks. What is interesting here is the status of Gibraltar and the UK http://www.gibraltaroffshore.com/gibraltar-tax-exempt-company-changes.htm I would be wary of proceeding with a company that has exempt EC status. You may be OK until something hits the fan outside of your control and then you could very well have problems. Far far better to us a company registered in the UK and a full member of the FSCS. The FSA is many things - but one thing I do know and that is that if the FSA flags up a warning then we are all wise to take that warning onboard. Specifically:- “Consumers considering or currently doing business with passported EEA firms ('EEA Authorised'), may wish to ask for further information from the firm or its UK branch about its complaints and compensation arrangements. This is because the position may differ compared to a UK authorised firm.” Source – FSA Website – Registration details Acromas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Not sure I was that queasy either (I did say slightly! :-) ), but the saving was negligible so I decided to stick with a well established, UK based firm, with a good reputation for their service. Their policies are underwritten by AVIVA and, so far, those who have have reported on events after claiming, have reported favourably on the way their claims have been handled. I can't really comment on CGI and their bit about Gibraltar. I wouldn't expect them to say it was a bad idea that would work against the interests of their clients, but at least they are honest about why Gib, in terms of the benefit to their bottom line. Is the regulatory environment as stringent as in UK? (But then, is/was the FSA a stunning example of a good regulatory body! Clive certainly doesn't think so, and it seems to me they weren't doing the job consumers were encouraged to believe they were doing.) They don't actually say it is, they say - in terms - it is regulated by a similar sounding body with similar sounding powers which, depending on how one interprets their words can mean everything or nothing. (I did also note they say they are to be audited again in 2004, which means their QA doesn't extend as far as their website!) But, if the FSA didn't/doesn't have the necessary sophistication to regulate effectively, even when drawing on the finest reserves of the "Financial capital of the world", what reserves does Gib have at its disposal? But then, me, I'm just a cynic! :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 OT but when I was based in Gib in the mid 70's it was a bit down at heel and run down, when we went back this year in the camper I was amazed by how wealthy the place is 8-) Whether that is due to the border being open?............or more likely its status as a tax haven ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 CliveH - 2011-05-18 5:21 PM Yes - Icesave and Kaupthing Edge were able to have the same wording. However - the reality is that in a company that is not actually registered in the UK then you have to go through the compensation scheme of the country of registration first and then apply to the FSCS for the top up. For example the Icelandic scheme provided a compensation scheme of so-many Icelandic Kronar (at the time about £15,000 I think) and then when you had got that then you could go to the FSCS for the rest. However as Gordon brown stepped in and with Prudential’s help (PLEASE NOTE - there are honourable companies out there and the role the dear old Pru played in bailing out Icelandic bank investors should be noted!) the Pru and the taxpayer bailed out each and every stupid investor who chased ridiculous interest rates and who took the word of equally ridiculous journalists who would not know a balance sheet from a mystic meg horoscope. One check with an accountant or IFA who knew what was going on would have stopped them in their tracks. I don't know what the two particular organisations claimed, but AFAIK, Kaupthing Edge in the UK was operated by a UK subsidiary, and fell fully under the UK FSCS scheme, so it wouldn't surprise me that they used similar wording. Icesave may have operated differently, and I don't know what wording they used, (though I can find reference to them being "up-front" about the situation before the crash) and, as you've pointed out, regardless of this, even if they used the "passport" system to provide "native" compensation and then an FSCS top-up, the net (financial) effect would (should) have been the same. The above, however, covers savings and investment, not insurance, and as I've already noted, I'd be a lot less comfortable in that case. What is interesting here is the status of Gibraltar and the UK http://www.gibraltaroffshore.com/gibraltar-tax-exempt-company-changes.htm I would be wary of proceeding with a company that has exempt EC status. I've no evidence that Acromas were/are tax-exempt, but only an (advised) suspicion that the Gibraltar tax position was/is preferential. Nonetheless, does the link that you've posted not imply that they can no longer (after 31 Dec 2010) be tax-exempt even if they ever were? You may be OK until something hits the fan outside of your control and then you could very well have problems. Far far better to us a company registered in the UK and a full member of the FSCS. The FSA is many things - but one thing I do know and that is that if the FSA flags up a warning then we are all wise to take that warning onboard. Specifically:- “Consumers considering or currently doing business with passported EEA firms ('EEA Authorised'), may wish to ask for further information from the firm or its UK branch about its complaints and compensation arrangements. This is because the position may differ compared to a UK authorised firm.” Source – FSA Website – Registration details Acromas ....well, you finally had to say something positive about the FSA :-D Whilst I think the warning is absolutely apposite and fair, I don't think one should necessarily read anything more into it than it actually says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-05-18 5:43 PM Not sure I was that queasy either (I did say slightly! :-) ), but the saving was negligible so I decided to stick with a well established, UK based firm, with a good reputation for their service. Their policies are underwritten by AVIVA ...| I would point you to clives first post, according to him you have chosen a company with a poor reputation, my experiance of them would back this up. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Robinhood - 2011-05-18 6:23 PM .........................................Whilst I think the warning is absolutely apposite and fair, I don't think one should necessarily read anything more into it than it actually says. True. But what it says to me is "don't say you weren't warned". They could, presumably, if they so chose, be specific as to why they give that warning. That they decline to do so persuades me that there is something ever so slightly "rotten in the state of Denmark" but they can't say what it is for fear of legal repercussions. So, instead, they issue an anodyne warning as a piece of cardboard down their trousers. That may be all they can, actually, do without writs flying around, but in my cynic's way, I think it behoves us all to consider just a little quizzically why the statement is there. If that amounts to reading more into the statement than it says, so be it but, having pursued a few issues with other consumer affairs regulators, I am increasingly sceptical of the claims made by any body supposedly regulating just about anything. It seems to me most are rather a sham; being denied (or told not to use) real teeth by government, while being promoted us "consumer champions". Their real role seems to be more to lull ordinary folk into a false sense of security when buying (because they think they will be protected from "sharp practise") to keep the tills happily jangling, while making any attempt at obtaining redress when things do go wrong about as bureaucratically tortuous as possible. But then, as I say, I'm just a cynic, and I digress. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-05-18 7:39 PM Robinhood - 2011-05-18 6:23 PM .........................................Whilst I think the warning is absolutely apposite and fair, I don't think one should necessarily read anything more into it than it actually says. True. But what it says to me is "don't say you weren't warned". They could, presumably, if they so chose, be specific as to why they give that warning. That they decline to do so persuades me that there is something ever so slightly "rotten in the state of Denmark" but they can't say what it is for fear of legal repercussions. So, instead, they issue an anodyne warning as a piece of cardboard down their trousers. That may be all they can, actually, do without writs flying around, but in my cynic's way, I think it behoves us all to consider just a little quizzically why the statement is there. If that amounts to reading more into the statement than it says, so be it but, having pursued a few issues with other consumer affairs regulators, I am increasingly sceptical of the claims made by any body supposedly regulating just about anything. It seems to me most are rather a sham; being denied (or told not to use) real teeth by government, while being promoted us "consumer champions". Their real role seems to be more to lull ordinary folk into a false sense of security when buying (because they think they will be protected from "sharp practise") to keep the tills happily jangling, while making any attempt at obtaining redress when things do go wrong about as bureaucratically tortuous as possible. But then, as I say, I'm just a cynic, and I digress. 8-) Brian great post as usual :D ..........................are we related?................where were you in 1958?......(lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-05-18 7:39 PM Robinhood - 2011-05-18 6:23 PM .........................................Whilst I think the warning is absolutely apposite and fair, I don't think one should necessarily read anything more into it than it actually says. True. But what it says to me is "don't say you weren't warned". They could, presumably, if they so chose, be specific as to why they give that warning. That they decline to do so persuades me that there is something ever so slightly "rotten in the state of Denmark" but they can't say what it is for fear of legal repercussions. So, instead, they issue an anodyne warning as a piece of cardboard down their trousers. That may be all they can, actually, do without writs flying around, but in my cynic's way, I think it behoves us all to consider just a little quizzically why the statement is there. If that amounts to reading more into the statement than it says, so be it but, having pursued a few issues with other consumer affairs regulators, I am increasingly sceptical of the claims made by any body supposedly regulating just about anything. It seems to me most are rather a sham; being denied (or told not to use) real teeth by government, while being promoted us "consumer champions". Their real role seems to be more to lull ordinary folk into a false sense of security when buying (because they think they will be protected from "sharp practise") to keep the tills happily jangling, while making any attempt at obtaining redress when things do go wrong about as bureaucratically tortuous as possible. But then, as I say, I'm just a cynic, and I digress. 8-) I also consider myself a cynic, but in this case it seems to me that it is purely there "because the position may differ compared to a UK authorised firm". The FSA are clear about the complaints and compensation for all UK regulated organisations, (because they are common to all and legislated for). The conditions for EEA "passported" organisations may vary depending on the home location of that organisation, and the local legislation. As a matter of fact, these are of no legal concern of the FSA, since they cannot deny such passporting under EU rules. Given the nature of the database, I would bet that the particular "warning" will simply be boilerplate that is placed if the current status field is "EEA Authorised". It may well be appropriate to make people aware of the generic situation, but it is not, IMO, anything specific about Acromas itself. In short, I think the FSA are both being jingoistic and protecting their backsides. :-S (i.e. "nowt to do with us" and "don't say you weren't warned" (lol) ) As already set out, my research indicates that Acromas complaints are handled by the UK Financial Ombudsman, (albeit that may be a matter of having volunteered, rather than being legally bound) and that (possibly subject to a two-stage process, but currently for insurance I even doubt that) the same ultimate level of compensation/protection applies as through a standard UK FSCS arrangement. Though it is somewhat out of date, (for example, there is now an Investor Compensation Scheme in place) the following provides a reasonable professional summary of the situation regarding insurance companies in Gibraltar. http://www.biba.org.uk/PDFfiles/Contents/546gibraltar.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Thanks for that, Robin. Very informative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.